Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6240
- 6259)
6240. During my presentation two days ago and
again in my questioning of Mr Berryman yesterday evening, I attempted
to show that there are alternatives available. I may not have
perfected my case, in view of my lack of expertise, but there
are other places where sidings can go, such as White Gates or
the other side of the Southend loop line, adjacent to White Gates,
where access can be sought by means of a temporary track and less
disruption to Shenfield town centre.
6241. I also believe that better use could be
made of the existing sidings and the existing track arrangements
at Shenfield Station—what are known as the eastern sidings,
the present eastern sidings. I do not think they have sufficiently
taken on board these options and I think they have too easily
discounted them. I do hope that perhaps further consideration
can be given to other options which will result in less disruption
perhaps to the entire Shenfield area or certainly into a considerable
part of it, the Hunter Avenue section, for example.
6242. That is really all I wanted to say. Thank
you very much.
6243. Chairman: Just for the record,
Mr Jardine, I do not think you should be worried: you presented
the case very well and you should be quite pleased with it.
6244. Mr Jardine: Thank you very much.
6245. Chairman: Mrs Ennals, would you
like to summarise?
6246. Mrs Ennals: Mr Chairman, Members
of the Committee, we thank you and have greatly appreciated the
opportunity to ask questions. Lat night Mr Berryman told us that
it was intended to place only single story Portakabins on the
Hunter Avenue worksite for the purpose of providing approximately
20 people with toilet, rest and cloakroom facilities. Mr Berryman
said there was no intention to provide canteen facilities. At
present the final layout of the site has not been decided so our
queries as to placement remain unresolved.
6247. If the worksite is placed at the eastern
end of Hunter Avenue we would respectfully request that the Portakabin
housing toilet facilities be sited away from 69 Hunter Avenue.
We asked if it would be possible to place the worksite at the
western end of the season ticket car park, thus providing a buffer,
with parked season ticket cars at the eastern end of the car park
and providing some protection for houses at the eastern end. There
is already a buffer between the maisonettes at the western end
provided by the short-stay car park.
6248. We understand that the Promoter wishes
to lay track at night, during some weekends, and we would ask,
please, that the residents of properties backing on to the railway
embankment be forewarned when this is to take place. We would
ask for an undertaking that the Promoter would take all possible
actions to mitigate the unsocial effects of the proposed works
on affected residents and we would appreciate an undertaking by
the Promoter to keep affected residents informed and consulted.
6249. We would also ask for an undertaking that
the car park will be reinstated as it at present stands, without
two entrances and exists. We do have general inquiries or queries
which we have already made and agree with the points previously
made.
6250. Thank you.
6251. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mrs Ennals. My remarks earlier to your colleague Mr Jardine apply
to yourself. Thank you very much for your presentation to the
Committee.
6252. We will now move on to Ms Meldal-Johnsen.
The Petition of Ms Meldal-Johnsen, Mrs Alison
Human and Mr Antoine Lurot
Mr Human appeared as Agent.
Ms Meldal-Johnsen appeared in person.
6253. Chairman: Ms Meldal-Johnsen, would
you like to begin? I understand that you are a little bit nervous,
but you are probably the most seasoned professional in parliamentary
affairs.
6254. Ms Meldal-Johnsen: But I am not
used to doing much talking, sir. Sir, my name is Ingrid Meldal-Johnsen
and I am speaking today not only for myself, but also on behalf
of my neighbours, fellow Petitioners, Mrs Alison Human and her
husband who has been appointed her agent, and Mr Antoine Lurot.
I gather that the Committee has already heard from several Petitioners
in person. I hope that I do not do or say anything that I should
not before you, but I hope that you will bear with me if I do.
6255. We are all residents of Bathurst Mews
in W2, which is just between Paddington and Hyde Park.[13]
All three of our properties will be affected by the Bill in the
same way. Each of us owns the freehold of our houses, though Mr
Lurot has acquired his since we lodged our Petition. At that time
he was the leaseholder.
6256. The Bill will enable the compulsory acquisition
of the subsoil and under-surface of the land consisting of our
properties to the extent that it lies more than nine metres below
the surface and this is because the eastbound tunnel will be directly
beneath us. Our Petition raised a number of concerns about the
Bill. The two main issues we are worried about are settlement
or other structural damage caused to our properties during construction
and noise and vibration where our main concern is really the noise
levels in our homes when trains are passing in the tunnel beneath
during the operational phase of the project.
6257. We have been in correspondence with Crossrail
since about this time last year and we met with them to discuss
our concerns on 7 February and have since exchanged further letters
with them. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that, through
a combination of the contents of the Promoter's Response Document
and what was said at our meeting on 7 February, Crossrail have
put our minds at rest on some of the issues, including settlement.
We have decided that we are not concerned enough about some of
the other issues to bring them to your attention today. The upshot
is that it is noise and vibration that is our remaining concern.
This was addressed at paragraphs 8 to 10 of our Petition.
6258. The main issue that we would like to raise
with you is that we do not think that the Bill and the surrounding
framework of controls provide us with sufficient right of redress
if the noise significance criterion that will apply to our properties
is exceeded once the project is up and running. We have, therefore,
been asking Crossrail for a contractual undertaking that the significant
threshold will not be exceeded.
6259. It is worth mentioning at this point that
Mrs Human owned her house during the life of the previous incarnation
of this project. At that time what was then Crossrail had agreed
in principle to give her and various other residents of the Mews
an undertaking on noise and other matters. The undertaking was
never signed as it was still under negotiation when the project
collapsed. We have put before you today a copy of what was the
latest draft of that undertaking for your reference.
13 Crossrail Ref: P73, Map Location of Petitioners
51, 52 and 24 Bathhurst Mews (WESTCC-1403-001). Back
| 
